Legal Definitions - judicial stacking

Judicial stacking refers to the deliberate practice of altering the composition of a court, typically by appointing or adding judges who are expected to rule in a manner favorable to a particular political agenda, ideology, or party. The primary goal is often to secure desired outcomes in future legal cases, influence the interpretation of laws, or shift the overall judicial philosophy of the court.

• Example 1: Federal Judicial Appointments

  After a presidential election, the newly elected president and their party in Congress prioritize filling numerous vacant federal judgeships across the country. They consistently nominate candidates who have a well-documented history of adhering to a specific legal philosophy that aligns with the president's political party's platform. These appointments are made with the expectation that these judges will interpret laws and the Constitution in a way that supports the administration's long-term policy goals.

  This illustrates judicial stacking because the president is intentionally shaping the judiciary by selecting judges whose expected rulings will likely support their political and ideological objectives, thereby influencing the direction of legal decisions for decades.

• Example 2: State Court Expansion

  A state legislature, frustrated by a series of rulings from the state's highest court that have overturned key legislative initiatives, passes a law to significantly increase the number of judges on that court. The governor, who belongs to the same political party as the legislative majority, then appoints new judges who are known to be sympathetic to the legislature's agenda. This action effectively creates a new majority on the court, which is then expected to be more favorable to the legislature's future laws.

  This is an example of judicial stacking because the legislature and governor are intentionally changing the court's size and filling the new positions with ideologically aligned individuals to alter the court's balance and ensure future rulings favor their political objectives.

• Example 3: Supreme Court "Packing" Proposal

  During a period of intense political disagreement over the direction of the nation's highest court, a political party proposes legislation to expand the number of justices on the Supreme Court. The proponents argue that the current court is out of step with the country's values. The underlying intention, however, is to allow the current president (who belongs to the same party) to appoint new justices who share the party's judicial philosophy, thereby creating a majority that would likely uphold the party's legislative agenda and potentially overturn previous unfavorable decisions.

  This scenario directly demonstrates judicial stacking, often referred to as "court packing," as it involves a deliberate attempt to change the number of judges on a court and then fill those new seats with politically aligned appointees to achieve a specific ideological or policy outcome.